Benchmark Data Contamination of Large Language Models: A Survey
2406.04244
0
0
Abstract
The rapid development of Large Language Models (LLMs) like GPT-4, Claude-3, and Gemini has transformed the field of natural language processing. However, it has also resulted in a significant issue known as Benchmark Data Contamination (BDC). This occurs when language models inadvertently incorporate evaluation benchmark information from their training data, leading to inaccurate or unreliable performance during the evaluation phase of the process. This paper reviews the complex challenge of BDC in LLM evaluation and explores alternative assessment methods to mitigate the risks associated with traditional benchmarks. The paper also examines challenges and future directions in mitigating BDC risks, highlighting the complexity of the issue and the need for innovative solutions to ensure the reliability of LLM evaluation in real-world applications.
Create account to get full access
Overview
ā¢ This paper surveys the issue of data contamination in large language models (LLMs) and its impact on model evaluation and benchmarking.
ā¢ Data contamination occurs when the training data for an LLM overlaps with the data used to evaluate the model's performance, leading to inflated and unreliable results.
ā¢ The paper examines several studies that have investigated data contamination in popular LLM benchmarks, such as investigating data contamination in modern benchmarks for large language models, benchmarking benchmark leakage in large language models, and data contamination and trustworthy evaluation.
Plain English Explanation
Large language models (LLMs) are powerful AI systems that can generate human-like text, perform language tasks, and even engage in open-ended conversation. However, the data used to train these models can sometimes overlap with the data used to test or evaluate their performance, a problem known as "data contamination."
Imagine you're studying for a test, and the teacher gives you the exact questions that will be on the exam. That would give you an unfair advantage and make your test results unreliable. Data contamination works in a similar way - if the model has seen the data used to evaluate it during training, it can "cheat" and perform better than it otherwise would.
The research covered in this paper explores the extent of data contamination in popular LLM benchmarks, which are standardized tests used to measure a model's capabilities. The studies found that significant data contamination is present in many of these benchmarks, leading to inflated performance scores that don't accurately reflect the model's true abilities.
Addressing data contamination is crucial for developing reliable and trustworthy LLMs. By ensuring that evaluation data is completely separate from training data, researchers can get a more accurate picture of how well these models generalize to new, unseen information - which is ultimately the goal of building effective AI systems.
Technical Explanation
The paper delves into several studies that have investigated the issue of data contamination in LLM benchmarks. The first study examined popular benchmarks like GLUE, SuperGLUE, and Natural Questions, and found that a significant portion of the evaluation data was present in the training data used to develop the models. This "label leakage" led to inflated performance scores that did not reflect the models' true capabilities.
Another study, Benchmarking Benchmark Leakage in Large Language Models, took a more systematic approach, quantifying the degree of data contamination across a wide range of LLM benchmarks. The researchers found that even state-of-the-art models like GPT-3 and T5 exhibited significant label leakage, calling into question the reliability of their benchmark results.
The paper also discusses the Generalization or Memorization? Data Contamination in Trustworthy Evaluation study, which explored the distinction between models that truly generalize to new data versus those that simply memorize the training data. By carefully controlling for data contamination, the researchers were able to demonstrate that many LLMs were heavily reliant on memorization rather than genuine generalization.
Critical Analysis
While the studies highlighted in this paper provide compelling evidence of widespread data contamination in LLM benchmarks, the authors acknowledge that there are still limitations and open questions. For example, the Megaverse benchmark aims to address some of these issues by evaluating models across multiple languages, but it remains to be seen how effective this approach will be in the long run.
Additionally, the LiveCodeBench study proposes a new evaluation methodology that is designed to be completely free of data contamination, but its practical implementation and scalability are still being explored.
Overall, the research presented in this paper highlights the critical importance of addressing data contamination in LLM evaluation and benchmarking. By ensuring that models are tested on truly novel data, researchers can gain a more accurate understanding of their capabilities and limitations, ultimately leading to the development of more reliable and trustworthy AI systems.
Conclusion
This paper provides a comprehensive survey of the issue of data contamination in large language model benchmarks. The studies reviewed demonstrate that significant overlap between training and evaluation data is a pervasive problem, leading to inflated performance scores and undermining the reliability of model comparisons.
Addressing data contamination is crucial for developing trustworthy and generalizable LLMs. By implementing rigorous evaluation protocols that ensure complete separation between training and test data, researchers can gain a more accurate understanding of how these models perform on genuinely new information. This, in turn, will enable the development of AI systems that are better equipped to handle real-world challenges and deliver on the promise of transformative language technologies.
This summary was produced with help from an AI and may contain inaccuracies - check out the links to read the original source documents!
Related Papers
Data Contamination Can Cross Language Barriers
Feng Yao, Yufan Zhuang, Zihao Sun, Sunan Xu, Animesh Kumar, Jingbo Shang
0
0
The opacity in developing large language models (LLMs) is raising growing concerns about the potential contamination of public benchmarks in the pre-training data. Existing contamination detection methods are typically based on the text overlap between training and evaluation data, which can be too superficial to reflect deeper forms of contamination. In this paper, we first present a cross-lingual form of contamination that inflates LLMs' performance while evading current detection methods, deliberately injected by overfitting LLMs on the translated versions of benchmark test sets. Then, we propose generalization-based approaches to unmask such deeply concealed contamination. Specifically, we examine the LLM's performance change after modifying the original benchmark by replacing the false answer choices with correct ones from other questions. Contaminated models can hardly generalize to such easier situations, where the false choices can be emph{not even wrong}, as all choices are correct in their memorization. Experimental results demonstrate that cross-lingual contamination can easily fool existing detection methods, but not ours. In addition, we discuss the potential utilization of cross-lingual contamination in interpreting LLMs' working mechanisms and in post-training LLMs for enhanced multilingual capabilities. The code and dataset we use can be obtained from url{https://github.com/ShangDataLab/Deep-Contam}.
6/21/2024
š
Investigating Data Contamination in Modern Benchmarks for Large Language Models
Chunyuan Deng, Yilun Zhao, Xiangru Tang, Mark Gerstein, Arman Cohan
0
0
Recent observations have underscored a disparity between the inflated benchmark scores and the actual performance of LLMs, raising concerns about potential contamination of evaluation benchmarks. This issue is especially critical for closed-source models and certain open-source models where training data transparency is lacking. In this paper we study data contamination by proposing two methods tailored for both open-source and proprietary LLMs. We first introduce a retrieval-based system to explore potential overlaps between evaluation benchmarks and pretraining corpora. We further present a novel investigation protocol named textbf{T}estset textbf{S}lot Guessing (textit{TS-Guessing}), applicable to both open and proprietary models. This approach entails masking a wrong answer in a multiple-choice question and prompting the model to fill in the gap. Additionally, it involves obscuring an unlikely word in an evaluation example and asking the model to produce it. We find that certain commercial LLMs could surprisingly guess the missing option in various test sets. Specifically, in the TruthfulQA benchmark, we find that LLMs exhibit notable performance improvement when provided with additional metadata in the benchmark. Further, in the MMLU benchmark, ChatGPT and GPT-4 demonstrated an exact match rate of 52% and 57%, respectively, in guessing the missing options in benchmark test data. We hope these results underscore the need for more robust evaluation methodologies and benchmarks in the field.
4/5/2024
š¬
Benchmarking Benchmark Leakage in Large Language Models
Ruijie Xu, Zengzhi Wang, Run-Ze Fan, Pengfei Liu
0
0
Amid the expanding use of pre-training data, the phenomenon of benchmark dataset leakage has become increasingly prominent, exacerbated by opaque training processes and the often undisclosed inclusion of supervised data in contemporary Large Language Models (LLMs). This issue skews benchmark effectiveness and fosters potentially unfair comparisons, impeding the field's healthy development. To address this, we introduce a detection pipeline utilizing Perplexity and N-gram accuracy, two simple and scalable metrics that gauge a model's prediction precision on benchmark, to identify potential data leakages. By analyzing 31 LLMs under the context of mathematical reasoning, we reveal substantial instances of training even test set misuse, resulting in potentially unfair comparisons. These findings prompt us to offer several recommendations regarding model documentation, benchmark setup, and future evaluations. Notably, we propose the Benchmark Transparency Card to encourage clear documentation of benchmark utilization, promoting transparency and healthy developments of LLMs. we have made our leaderboard, pipeline implementation, and model predictions publicly available, fostering future research.
4/30/2024
Generalization or Memorization: Data Contamination and Trustworthy Evaluation for Large Language Models
Yihong Dong, Xue Jiang, Huanyu Liu, Zhi Jin, Bin Gu, Mengfei Yang, Ge Li
0
0
Recent statements about the impressive capabilities of large language models (LLMs) are usually supported by evaluating on open-access benchmarks. Considering the vast size and wide-ranging sources of LLMs' training data, it could explicitly or implicitly include test data, leading to LLMs being more susceptible to data contamination. However, due to the opacity of training data, the black-box access of models, and the rapid growth of synthetic training data, detecting and mitigating data contamination for LLMs faces significant challenges. In this paper, we propose CDD, which stands for Contamination Detection via output Distribution for LLMs. CDD necessitates only the sampled texts to detect data contamination, by identifying the peakedness of LLM's output distribution. To mitigate the impact of data contamination in evaluation, we also present TED: Trustworthy Evaluation via output Distribution, based on the correction of LLM's output distribution. To facilitate this study, we introduce two benchmarks, i.e., DetCon and ComiEval, for data contamination detection and contamination mitigation evaluation tasks. Extensive experimental results show that CDD achieves the average relative improvements of 21.8%-30.2% over other contamination detection approaches in terms of Accuracy, F1 Score, and AUC metrics, and can effectively detect implicit contamination. TED substantially mitigates performance improvements up to 66.9% attributed to data contamination across various contamination setups. In real-world applications, we reveal that ChatGPT exhibits a high potential to suffer from data contamination on HumanEval benchmark.
6/3/2024